“You cannot live without establishing an equilibrium between the inner and outer.”

—–

Paul Auster

=========

“I used to think of you that way, you know. Like the sun. My own personal sun. You balanced out the clouds nicely for me.”

He sighed.

“The clouds I can handle. But I can’t fight with an eclipse.”

–

Jacob

=======

“The idea that talent is directly proportional to your trophy cabinet is one I oppose.”

—-

Alex Turner

==================

Ok. I have been extremely consistent over the years with regard to my belief that I think balance is the key to almost any successful endeavor – in life & in business.

Suffice it to say I am a big balance person. And, yet, the other day during a business discussion it occurred to me that I may not be using the right word or even have the concept correct.

I may actually be a ‘proportional’ advocate.

Let me explain. Business, more often than not, is about assessing the correct proportional value of a topic, fact or idea and assigning the correct proportional response to that value.

Sure. That may inevitably arrive at something we could call “a balanced response”, but to get to the so-called balance we need to think about proportions.

I imagine, in my head, this means we need to stop viewing things as a zero sum balance, but rather as proportional to the situation in hand.

Now. I did some research and back in 1975 a guy named Piaget described the essential characteristic of proportional reasoning as it must involve a “relationship between two relationships.” I am not really sure what that means, but I am guessing it means that proportional assumes some dimensional aspects while balance is simply a relationship between two more concrete/discrete things.

He also suggested that proportional involves something called “additive reasoning” which, to me, explained my misrepresentation of balance.

Balance suggests an either/or trade off — something like teetering on a balance beam.

Proportional suggests a more spatial trade off or, maybe, ratio based trade off. What I mean by that is I can add one thing as part of a compromise and its true value is a zillion and give up one thing as part of the same compromise and its true value is 1/10th of a zillion (despite the fact their actual costs may be different).

I balanced my response, but gained a proportional advantage.

There is even something called ‘the constant of proportionality’, but that becomes too complicated for my pea like brain so I will let you google it and see if you can explain it.

I imagine my real point is that most of us, most likely, are proportional thinkers and not balance thinkers <although we say we are balanced>.

More often than not we invariably assess things through assimilation and the synthesis of multiple things <numbers, ratios, tangible, intangible, and … yes … even missing information & components>. Our decisions are a messy mix of analyzing a series of unequal and equal things shaping them into the proper proportions to make a, well, proportional response. This can all make sense but it doesn’t really make it any easier for us. its not easier because balance is easier to assess and judge, balance is almost always associated with ‘fair’ while proportional often looks like something won & something lost and balance gets confused with linear zero sum game decision making.

All that said. Here was the bigger epiphany to me on why we should explore the more difficult pat of proportional thinking.

While balanced may seem like a simple improper term the truth is the more one focuses on balance the higher the likelihood I would actually end up doing the wrong things.

Huh? If you focus on balance you will inevitably try and force equality in all things. That may sound good, but it ain’t really reality. Simplistically it means you are focused on the wrong outcome & objective.

Instead, if you focus on the best proportional response to every situation, you may not end up with a one-to-one balanced relationship on any one comparison you review <which creates issues in its own right>, but you will end up with a balanced relationship on any given series of comparisons.

That last paragraph may actually showcase why most people focus on balance. In a simplistic measurement business world we are almost always demanded to show one-to-one or linear explanations.

Balance does that.

Proportion does not.

This means to embrace being proportional means you will have to accept the burden of explaining the more difficult to explain, to showcase asymmetrical as actually being simple and dimensional can actually reflect symmetry. Nothing in what I just shared in that last paragraph is easy. Particularly in today’s business world.

============

“Divide the target in proportion to the available resources”
―

Sunday Adelaja

==========

All I really know is that, whether I like it or not, I am actually a proportion person and not a balance person. It only took me over 25 years in business to figure that out <no one has ever suggested I am a quick learner>.

Think about it. You may actually be a proportional person too. More importantly, maybe you should be.

============

“Whenever you take an action, decide by both your brain and heart in equal proportions. Balance them as far as possible.”―

For the latter, well, just see the gobs of information and quotes online with regard to “if you aren’t moving forward you are standing still” … “don’t look back or you’ll miss what is in front of you” … “don’t look back you are not going that way” or some fortune cookie wisdom like that <as if no one knows that movement, and progress, is good>. I call this the ‘forward progress theory’ business <I have noted elsewhere Life, like chess, is about facing the entire board and obstacles & opportunities which lie all around you, not just in front of you, & you can move in a variety of directions with progress in mind>.

That said.

With regard to progress, the bravest thing you can do is to not look back. Why do I say ‘brave’? We make it really hard to not look back. Really hard. Day in and day out everything around you pounds on you for ‘what did you learn’ and how are you applying it and ‘if you don’t know learnings from the past how can you be sure that is the right thing to do?” <crap like that>.

Okay. Semi useful thinking crap like that. But what it really means is that anyone truly desiring to move forward, intent on progress, keeps getting dragged back time and again to the past. What, or who, is the main culprit of this almost unhealthy relationship with the past?

“Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to make the same mistakes.”

Christalmighty.“Doomed.”

No wonder people are afraid of some risk or hesitate to move forward keep looking backwards. Doom is never a particularly desirable objective if you care about your career <or anything for that matter>.

The ‘doomed’ aspect <which older business people toss around like confetti in meetings> means we are almost demanded to not only invest energy in the past but, in some cases, encouraged to hold on to past learning with ragged claws. That said … I will go back to the bravery aspect because I could argue the truest bravery, in this sense, resides in two places:

Not looking back once you have decided to move forward.

Not looking back when you purposefully stand still.

Yeah.

First.Move.There are actually times to just go. Go and do. I do not mean ‘go’ as solely leaning on instincts <I call this ‘decision faking by intuition‘>, because research tends to show instincts are less important than experience, but lean on your experience to guide you through the context of your progress. The truth is that the past cannot show you all the shit you need to know as you move forward. It only shows aspects of shit you should be aware of. And, worse, the past has nasty habit of not encouraging you to reflect on the context of all the aspects just the aspects themselves. Therefore history is truly only important in parts and not the whole.

This means you have to grab the scraps of what you need from the past and create a new whole in moving forward. That is where bravery steps up to the plate. More often than not you are creating a new whole … a slightly different version of what was. Yeah. That is different than the past <it s actually something new>. Yeah. Everyone is actually a creator, a discoverer albeit we don’t like to think about that. While this point is a generalization … if you know your shit … once you have decided to go … to move forward … don’t look back. Bravely face the new world ahead.

Yeah.

Second.Stand still. There are actually times to stop. Stand still. Even amidst activity. Even amidst a crowd which seems like it is moving forward <albeit sometimes all you see is the movement>.

Stillness, strategic stillness, is possibly one of the scariest things anyone can ever do. When everyone and everything is moving you feel like you are ding something wrong in standing still. And, yet, by purposefully doing so you may be adding to the progress rather than taking away from it.

Here is what I know about purposefully standing still.

You have to accept the fact you are offering the type of energy that no matter where you are and no matter that you are still & not moving you are actually adding value to the space and time and progress to that which is around you. I can promise you that this takes a version of bravery.

Anyway.

The entire ‘Forward progress Theory’ is difficult. Difficult in the mind <attitudes> and even in practice <behavior>. I could argue that it is so difficult because our natural instinct is to try and use the past to define what the future will look like. That is slightly crazy when you think about it. While the arc of time suggests the future will most likely replicate the past, well, that is the arc and not the details. It’s kind of like discussing strategy versus tactics. The strategy may remain the same or similar, but the tactics will vary in the context of time & situation.

Progress does take some bravery, some courage. Mostly because the future will always contain something you have never seen before or faced before. In other words … it will not be the same as it was.

I don’t think I am particularly brave but I certainly don’t look back once I decide to go … and I have no qualms with standing still amidst movement. I tend to believe it is not bravery but rather experience.

Ah. Experience. Maybe you need to be brave to gain useful experience?

Ok.

That’s another post for another day ……..

===================

“Sometimes people let the same problem make them miserable for years when they could just say, ‘So what’.

“If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.”

–

William Blake

=====

Ok. Far too often we speak of progress as “forward.” This implies all progress lies in one, and only one, direction, and, it is a linear concept & function. This is wrong. Unequivocally, absolutely, wrong.

Well. I know I have fallen in this trap myself on occasion. I have certainly suggested that Life is often a ragged diagonal, but more often than not I discuss progress as forward.

It is not true. Forward ain’t the only direction for progress.

Please note that I am not suggesting movement represents actual progress just that progress can appear in any direction.

Well, okay, to be fair, I imagine I am also suggesting movement is good. It may not represent actual progress, but it does represent two things:

<1> you are less likely to be run over by someone who is moving … and you are not

<2> restlessness most typically is indicative of curiosity, exploring, discovery and learning.

So I am suggesting movement involves at least some sort of proactive restlessness <although I imagine fear driven restlessness is also some version of progress itself>. This movement means you have increased the likelihood to live for another day or another moment combined with the fact that the experience you gain while moving increases the likelihood you will be ‘better’ in some way the next day or moment.

Now. If you believe progress can be defined in any direction, not just forward, it has some pretty positive outputs:

– multitude of possibility: instead of possibilities residing somewhere in front of you now you can explore possibilities in any direction. This suggests progress is infinite <not possibilities>.

– time is less constrained: when you only have one direction you can go it can become very constraining as time looks extremely finite because it appears to only have value when moving in one direction <all other paths and dimensions have no value because no ‘progress’ is attached to it>. In other words, if progress can occur in any direction, your present gets some elbow room.

==

“Sometimes, I feel the past and the future pressing so hard on either side that there’s no room for the present at all.”

Evelyn Waugh

==

As I said earlier, I have been wrong on this topic in the past. I have said ‘if you are not moving forward you are moving backwards <metaphorically>”.

I was wrong.

If you remain committed to restless movement and possibly some strategic side to side steps, maybe even thoughtful steps back, heck, even standing still on occasion; it can all be part of progress.

Lastly. I purposefully used the word ‘committed.’ Movement in Life &Business takes commitment.

It may sound odd, or counter intuitive, but constantly fighting the battle between progress and stagnancy takes commitment. Its not that stagnancy is so attractive its more that Movement is difficult — physically, emotionally and mentally. There is a constant urge to do … well … nothing <let’s call it ‘rest’>, and counter-intuitively, rest can actually steer you in the opposite direction from where you ultimately want to go. Yes. Rest, sitting still, can actually create negative progress or misguided progress.

We have to commit ourselves movement and recognize that all your movement and the decisions & actions that take place within your purposeful committed movement counts in some form or fashion.

And isn’t that what progress really about?

Making moments count?

Who gives a shit if the moment is behind where you currently are, to your side, maybe diagonally? Who cares if progress maybe even steps away from where you are?

If you make the moment count that is progress. Therefore, progress is an output from movement, any movement, not just forward.

Both of these pieces explored some of the societal challenges we face but, at their core, both revolve around what we view as fair – for I and We and Us.

Fair and fairness is a much more difficult topic to discuss than one would think. Maybe it is more difficult because I believe we are living through a period of simmering anger. People are angry with government, with capitalism, with media, with religion, with inequality, with immigrants, with Europe, with big business, with Russia, with how they get treated and with, well, everything seems to be changing.

In my eyes all of this is rooted in an overall question, and concern, at an individual level of “with all this change as the world transforms I am afraid change will not treat me fairly.” <this is a derivation of my post of “I get angry when people screw with my hope”>. Therefore we rage against anything we can attempting to insure the tentacles of fairness touch us at some point.

———

“The most dangerous moments are not when people are their poorest but rather when their expectations of significant improvement are raised … and end in frustration.”

de Tocqueville

—————

Interestingly, the whole discussion of fairness ITSELF creates a sense of anger.

The reason for this is that fairness sounds simple, but is complex. The most basic logic of fairness suggests choosing between which poor people, who is most in need, are more worthy of the help of the generous and “morally superior” wealthy. That is the mental logic we apply as we attempt to parse out fairness rather than have fair become mired in “equal for all.”

Yet, while even struggling working people will agree those in truest poverty, particularly children, are first in line for ‘fair’ their personal anger is not even partially quenched. They are not quenched because fairness is both an “I” thing AND a “we” thing which is not selfishness but self preservationness.

A society of fairness is one in which we are fair with each other and the system, in turn, is fair to us.

It is about attitude (and persistently holding onto that attitude).

It is, at it’s core, frankly, not glamorous.

It is the nitty gritty stuff and not the college education and wall street or even the government.

It is about marrying principle and pragmatism and gradual improvement.

It is infrastructure like streets, trains, highways and roads, public parks & community centers, easily accessible fountain water, lower level easy access good public education, stuff like that.

It is basically common sense bricks & mortar actions within a … well … the hard part … an equality based moral order frame.

Jobs is the tangible <which we need> and moral order is the intangible which creates the structure for behavior within the tangible. Jobs may be hierarchical <at the moment>, but morals should not be hierarchical.

These are not problems which can’t be fixed by simply suggesting rich white folk save the poor or “marginalized working people.” In addition it about people fighting back against injustice and working hard. It is about personal responsibility AND shared responsibility. It is about people being active positive participants in their own lives.

A ‘society of fairness’ clearly reaches into the heart, and soul, of what most of us care about, it reaches into our attitudes (because it is hard work), but almost immediately runs into the economic obstacles of ‘what is fair’.

I tend to believe all of us know that it doesn’t mean everybody has the same income. It translates more into equality of opportunity. The difficulty resides in putting dollars & cents and tactics & objectives against ‘fair & opportunity.’ No one, and I mean no one, couldn’t simplistically point out the extreme unfairness. But the true society of fairness is defined not by the extremes but rather what happens in the majority.

I share my thoughts today not to suggest we shouldn’t seek a society of fairness, but rather to point out that “fair”, in and of itself, is significantly more complex and complicated than when looking at it on a superficial level.

That said. We can do something to make the world the place we want it to be if we get our heads on straight.

What do I mean? I found a fabulous little article at a site called Common Cause Foundation on Values . But it was in the middle of the article where the author nailed the issue with regard to attaining a Society of Fairness.

==

Common Cause Foundation has recently conducted research in the UK and the US looking at the values people hold, and the values they think their fellow citizens hold.

We’re still analysing this, but here are two early results. Firstly, a large majority of people hold self-transcendence values (generally concerned with the wellbeing of others) to be more important than self-enhancement values (based on the pursuit of personal status and success). But this isn’t seen by most people, who believe that their compatriots hold self-transcendence values to be less important, and self-enhancement values to be more important.

Perhaps this is a key reason why many people don’t get engaged and active, although sharing values that would otherwise lead them to – because they believe that they are in a minority, and that society at large doesn’t share their values. We call this the ‘perception gap’. It’s a gap that many in our media, and many in government, seem to work hard to perpetuate.

==

In America we are certainly living out that ‘gap’ quite vocally, but as we wrestle with fairness and shared self-transcendence values I will note some reality — America has always been defined by a combination idealism and materialism. A balance of the two & it would be silly to suggest ditching one for the other. I would also note both are powerful sources of motivation.

The idealism expresses the best of human instincts in that it sanctifies the fixing America break someone else prioritizing of others over oneself and requires social and political respect. The materialism celebrates individualism.

===

“It is not fair to ask of others what you are not willing to do yourself.”

Eleanor Roosevelt

===

The combination has coexisted because one never sought to fix itself by breaking the other. The natural coexisting conflict sparks greatness, opportunity and progress.

In my words it is organizational alignment of social, materialism and political.

The difficulty with the idealism side of the equation is that people’s idealism tends to translate into, well, it doesn’t necessarily live in the real world. In our idealism, our hope to be the best of the best, we seek some things that aren’t feasible in a practical sense <and, yeah, someone is gonna throw out that practicality is just another word for “too hard”>. My response? It’s not too hard, sometimes it just isn’t feasible. That is because unfortunately ideas are reliant on two things: the power of the idea and access to an infrastructure to embrace & implement the idea. If either side fails to meet the challenge it all fails.

It is irresponsible to offer up ideas for consumption without an infrastructure in place <or a foreseeable path to a rebuilt infrastructure> to, at minimum, accept the idea and, at maximum, implement the idea.

And that is where alignment on fairness tends to fall apart.

What is maybe worse is that not only is it extremely difficult to effectively communicate what I just said but many people don’t care when they are dominated by anger. They just want solutions – they just want it done.

And if that anger is tied to a real & tangible & personal ‘unfairness’ … well … gradualism never sounds compelling and, frankly, isn’t compelling. Revolution appears much more attractive.

Here is a realistic truth. In 1990 Peter Drucker discussed Salvation by Society < his version of society of fairness> – http://brucemctague.com/salvation-by-society – and how a transforming business world was killing it. We now see in 2016/18 the full repercussions of that transformation. Fairness may begin today … but its positive transformation will take decades to become re-embedded in our business, and societal, structure and institutions.

Anyway.

I love the idea of a society of fairness. Unfortunately, in today’s world, fair means different things to different people. And demonizing any group of people, even despite their inordinate wealth, doesn’t really seem fair. Good people reside at every wealth level. Good people reside in every skin color. Good people reside, well, let’s just say that 98.5% of the time 98.5% of the people are good <I made up the 98.5% and thought it looked smarter than simply putting 99%>. And the 1.5% bad are not solely in the purview of the mega wealthy.

And therein lies the hope for a Society of fairness. Good resides in the significant majority. It simply lies dormant and needs to be reawakened.

With that I return to Otto Sharmer. What I like about his thoughts aren’t all the specific thoughts (which I could haggle with aspects), but rather the holistic integrated view of creating a society of fairness. It is complex, & I am not sure we are aligned with what ‘fair’ really is, but if we can envision what the totality could look like, well, it can be built.

“Culture is an elevated expression of the inner voice which the different peoples of the Earth have heard in the depths of their being, a voice which conveys the vibrant compassion and wisdom of the cosmic life. For different cultures to engage in interaction is to catalyze each other’s souls and foster mutual understanding.”

—-

Daisaku Ikeda

==================

Let me get my main points out of the way:

I believe, unequivocally, businesses should operate in ways that are conducive to a healthy planet and healthier society.

I don’t believe businesses need to market such operations and initiative. In addition, i DON’T recommend they do so unless they are 100% committed to it. not 99%, 100%.

Despite gobs of research about how young people (Millennials) prefer buying from businesses associated with sustainability & causes I don’t believe the majority would actually pay more nor do I believe it is a true deep-seated ‘preference’ (it is more about assuaging ‘guilt’ – read on for explanation).

Anyway. Let me get to my points. There is a lot of research coming out suggesting the importance of Causes & Social Involvement in consumer choices and what they value. At its most base level this discussion is about cultural & societal concepts tied to future desires <and behavior> of people. It is kind of guessing <in an educated thoughtful way> how people will want to behave with regard to larger Planet-type issues and discussing what behavior will make them happy <from a Maslow type perspective> in the future <and the value associated with it>.

This is good type thinking, not simply mental masturbation.

By the way. Thinking about the future type stuff can be Jetsons type pie in the sky type thinking or it can be more pragmatic ‘rising generations with existing perceptions and how will they act in the future’ type thinking. I tend to be more pragmatic. I do so because it is fun. It is fun in that every every generation rising <young to old> rebel against the norms & ‘standards’ of the older more established generations and as we view ‘trends’ & research it becomes easy to confuse simple rebellion rhetoric and true desires that affect behavior.

Regardless. The windows exist and if you can identify the underlying attitudinal shifts you can be successful by offering things that tap into this attitude <and you can reap the benefits of their behavior>.

Let me get the contrarian conclusion out of the way:

most people only care about Causes & planet to a point (despite what they say).The majority of young people say they care about Causes with regard to brand choice is out of guilt, not depth of caring. This is NOT to suggest social causes & caring about the planet *& sustainability are not important just that there is a gap between that importance to a individual and other things that matter when decide to make choices & do things. Altruism has limits to the everyday people.

most people care about personal wealth & lifestyle.The majority of young people still want to accumulate money & things they just don’t want to be seen as greedy as older generations. You would have to be blind, deaf and dumb to miss the attitude among the young that older generations are greedy. That’s easy. The hard part is that we old folk flippantly disregard this attitude as the naiveté of youth. Silly us old folk. The young DO recognize the value of accumulating wealth and the benefits that come along with it, they just don’t want to do it the same way. Conversely, it is silly to not recognize young people want shit – things, money & recognition (yes, they are capitalists too>.

No matter how we may want to couch attitudes in some trite platitudes — people will always want to be valued and fairly compensated for the value they provide. The future challenge is how to let the Reptilian brain ‘accumulate wealth’ and increase personal value all the while balanced with a moralistic <semi altruistic> belief that ‘I want to be fair’ <at its most hedonistic shallow level it would actually be ‘how can I become wealthy and not look like a greedy jerk’>.

I imagine the more positive slant on it is a revitalization of some sense of altruism or fairness while still consuming. People, especially younger people, are feeling conflicted between their desire to earn & spend and their aspiration to do the right thing. They are looking for products and services that will deliver value and quality while, at the same time, provide reassurance that their ‘accumulating’ is not seen as greedy or doing a level of ‘harm’ to the greater good <note: that ‘level’ is an individually driven assessment & typically not a societal standard>.

Trendwatching researchers suggest that consumers were experiencing guilt over how they spend, and on what they spend it on, which means they will look at how companies conduct their business, from where they source their products and whether they are engaged in socially-responsible initiatives.

Here is where the cynical me steps in.

The key to addressing consumer guilt is to identify the choices that cause the consumer the most concern and “absolve” them of the guilt.

Once again. This doesn’t mean ‘me’ desires go away. It, in its most simplistic sense, is suggesting a ‘guilt free’ aspect to the desire to accumulate wealth or things. Cynically, a person seeks an implied ‘balance’ — a bargaining with a desire to accumulate.

In a non-cynical way someone has added a belief if that a ‘me’ can make more, earn more & and accumulate/have more and feel good about it if the ‘optimal end game’ is connected to a greater ‘we’ aspect <environment, society, sharing of that which is accumulated with less fortunate>. This mental bargaining is an attempt to alleviate the guilt that gnaws at the conscience of those who, mostly with good intent, want to do the best they can and accumulate the most wealth they can.

—–“Guilt upon the conscience, like rust upon iron, both defiles and consumes it, gnawing and creeping into it, as that does which at last eats out the very heart and substance of the metal.”

Robert South

——

Wealth & consuming is achieved with a balance of ‘what I could have had, but shared.’ This shared aspect shows an innate sacrifice of ‘me’, but not at the expense of success <or actualization>. Instead it shows a sharing of individual success. Successful wealth management <growth> shows ‘not too much’ by ‘I could have had more but I don’t.’

It also meets a Maslow thought: ‘I am successful – not everyone can be successful – therefore by being as good as I can be (which is better than many people) I am contributing to the greater good for those who cannot do what I can do.’

All the psychological mumbo jumbo aside. Guilt free accumulation, despite sounding like some moral relativism, actually does deliver a sense of fairness — fair to me and we. It’s not straight up altruism but its a version of individualistic altruism.

I called this basic attitudinal concept Community Individualism in 2010. And I still call it that. The seeds of this type of thinking have been planted and while it will most likely not prosper in current adult generations it will thrive in younger rising generations. It will be <at least in my eyes> the prevalent psycho-graphic attitude every business will need to attend to in the future.

Hey. Interestingly if you google my ‘community individualism’ concept you will find a number of really well written articles and intellectual papers outlining the battle <tension> between ‘community’ and ‘individualism.’

I say interestingly for 2 reasons:

1. Because I believe there is an entire rising generation who is answering the battle for “us” <versus just ‘me’>. They are living it and have grasped it and are embodying how to be and do both. We <older folk> could not figure it out. They have.

2. I am the only one, I have found, who believes there is no tension, but rather an embracing, between community & individualism in this next younger generation.

Anyway. ‘Community Individualism’ or “Enlightened Individuality.” I will not bore you with everything I have written but give some relevant highlights to align everyone on my thinking.

——-

The post millennial generation (The Global Generation – others call it “Z”) will have been preceded by the two extremes of community and individualism. The worldwide web will enable a higher level of intimacy between cultures and globally dispersed local communities (or maybe, more specifically, individuals). We see this emerging even today (it just has not matured). Not surprisingly, this technology has transformed our worlds – empowering people with access to extensive circles of population as well as connecting in surprisingly personal and intimate ways.

My thoughts may seem extreme … but I believe the Millennial generation is “too far down the path” to be the Global Generation. They were the early adopters of a web based global community aspect and there will certainly be “cusp” generational citizens, but as a whole they are being bombarded with the vocal minority and don’t have the global counterbalance (I guess what I mean by that is I believe Millenials will still fall back on country cultural cycles as the subconscious place to go). Millennials will be open to a global community (which is the reason why I believe the Global Generation will be successful as they follow in their footsteps).

Remember.

Generations are not set by birth, but by accumulated experience over a lifetime. As Millennials will deal with a Crisis, the Global Generation will deal with the aftermath.

This balance of community and individuality will permit this generation to better accept and respect the choices made by individuals globally and yet strengthen local communities (I actually believe that will be represented by strengthened country patriotism). The community aspect will definitely lead to some cultural or geographical driven conflict yet the respect for individual choices elsewhere will balance the conflict within a “values set of rules.”

——–

All that said. As noted above I believe that while generations turn and attitudes evolve over time that the advent of the internet has truly enabled a new ‘mixing’ of an attitude and should enable new behavior. Interestingly the internet has not just changed behaviors but also attitudes <in that we are now better able to judge others’ behaviors>.

Transparency doesn’t just go in one direction <towards the bad guys … and ‘evil corporations’>.

And while the internet may appear to sharpen <or cocoon> opinions & beliefs it has actually made us more aware of issues and differences <whether we like or dislike the differences is a different issue>. It may have made us more defensive with regard to our own attitudes it has also encouraged us to go on the offensive to showcase our ‘moral cores.’

By the way.

This doesn’t mean a ‘flatter’ world. It means a more aware world. You can no longer just ‘be me’ and be invisible … me is now always visible.

This comes with some repercussions whether it’s protecting or projecting your image or character. The world today with its internet driven transparency forces us all to take a closer look at not only our behavior but also what that behavior ‘begets.’

In the end.

Guilt free accumulation is the future attitude <generating a type of behavior> that needs to be addressed if you are in business and want to innovate products & services … or just want to understand what attitudes which need to be tapped into in order to be successful.

Why should you believe me? I will end with what I started with … “an elevated expression of the inner voice which the different peoples of the Earth have heard in the depths of their being, a voice which conveys the vibrant compassion and wisdom of life.”

Listen closely.

Branding people may misuse the information and and others, like me, will caution the depth of this caring & inner voice.

But.

The inner voice of fairness is raising its voice to be heard. A lot of us older folk may try to shut it out, but the younger voices will be heard. And in being heard they will drive the behavior of the future.

“To those searching for truth — not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction — faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.”

—–

Thomas A. Edison

=======

I picked up Alvin Toffler’s “The Third Wave” today and reread his chapter “The Mental Maelstrom” in which he highlights “wholism versus halfism.” To me it tweaked my overall disdain lurking in my head with regard to fortune cookie wisdom. To me it reminded me fortune cookie wisdom is a virus attacking society, business and thinking in general.

It reminded me of how not being satisfied with a soundbite memory, or fortune cookie wisdom, is important.

It reminded me the full story does matter.

It reminded me stories most typically have beginnings and endings and to ignore one for the other risks losing something important – truth & knowledge.

Let me explain.

Most of us remember Neil Armstrong’s first words on landing on the moon as the first man to walk on the moon: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Gene Cernan, the last man to walk on the moon in 1972, said this: “We leave as we came and, god willing, as we shall return, with peace, and hope for all mankind.”

I imagine my point today is that in today’s world I worry a little bit that it seems like we not only want to rush through doing shit, trying to get as much done as possible as quickly as possible, but also rush through thinking and getting the whole story. And while my example I used may not be the best example of this, it is an example that there was more to find if we went beyond “one giant leap for mankind.”

I will state, bad opening example or not, we are far too often guilty of taking a headline thought, or a thought out of context, and reapplying it to some specific detailed conclusions.

In other words. We take a generalization and apply to some specific thought, attitude, opinion and even a behavior.

That is … well … fucking nuts.

Now. I admit.

I am guilty, on occasion, of using quotes & thoughts beyond what the words were initially intended for. However. I fully take responsibility for doing so <usually noting it immediately as “I recognize that the author of these words most likely didn’t intend them to be used this way.” In addition I typically use the words & thoughts to apply them to another life or business situation.

<I say that to protect my happy ass from someone pointing out that I also ignore the full story>

Yeah. I am sure I am guilty of ignoring the full story on occasion.

Yeah. I believe everyone is guilty of ignoring the full story on occasion.

Yeah. I believe our guiltiness doesn’t make it right or any better.

Truth, more often than not, resides in the full story.

Facts, more often than not, resides in the full story.

That is why the full story matters. With only half the story, or maybe just the headline of a story, we miss out on half the story to maybe even 90% of the story to maybe even the entire point of the story. What I do know is that fortune cookie wisdom thrives on half stories.

Don’t believe me? Think about these half stories.

The phrase “curiosity killed the cat”is actually not the full story … it actually is “curiosity killed the cat but satisfaction brought it back.”

Wow.

Half the story suggests that curiosity is dangerous & the full story suggests pursuing curiosity can achieve satisfaction.

The phrase “Jack of all trades, master of none” is actually not the full story it actually is “Jack of all trades, master of none, but better than a master of one.”

Wow.

Half the story would suggest … well … focus & expertise & specializing is the path to success … the full story suggests being equally good/average at everything is much better than being perfect at one thing and sucking at everything else.

Uhm. Maybe the message should be “being okay is … well … okay.”

The phrase “great minds think alike”is actually not the full story, it actually is “great minds think alike but fools rarely differ.”

Wow.

Half the story suggests that if ‘great minds’ agree it has to be a good idea … the full story suggests that great minds seeking to not be fools or foolish should debate & disagree. The full story suggests that conformity isn’t always a good thing. The full story suggests that just because more than one person has the same idea it doesn’t necessarily mean it is a good idea. The full story suggests, in my words, enlightened conflict is good.

The phrase “birds of a feather flock together”is actually not the full story, it actually is “birds of a feather flock together until the cat comes.”

Wow.

Half the story suggests the power of similar thinking and similar thinking people … the full story suggests … uhm … well … it is actually a warning. It is a warning against complacency of false security. It is a warning against cocooning attitudes or maybe even the weaknesses of cliques. It is a warning that one can endanger the many. And, maybe, it is a warning that anything less than a full story is dangerous.

The phrase ‘blood is thicker than water’isn’t even half the story, it is a made up headline for a story that really matters. The real story? “The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.”

Wow. Oops.

So using just the false headline suggests family is all that matters … uhm … when it really means that relationships of choice are stronger than relationships simply borne of birth.

And, of course, there is the most typically shared half story of Pandora’s Box.

The story which suggests curiosity and/or ignoring what you are told is evil <it release evil into the world> … and, yet, the full story finds one last thing in the bottom of the box — “hope.”

Enough examples?

Yeah. I know. Half stories are easier. Takes less work, less thinking and is certainly less complex.

Regardless. Here is what I know about why the full story matters.

The search for truth lies somewhere within the full story. If we do not embark on the search and end up settling for half the story we then end up with something less – in Toffler’s words we end up with a “halfism”.

Less than the full story.

Less than the full truth.

Less than the full conclusion.

Less than the full facts.

Suffice it to say it is something “less than.” It is ‘halfism.’ Worse? Its dangerous. Fortune cookie wisdom is not wisdom, it is halfism and we need ‘wholism’ in a complex world.

Business demands more than soundbites and fortune cookie wisdom.

Life demands more than soundbites and fortune cookie wisdom.

Humans, and humanity, demands more than soundbites and fortune cookie wisdom.

These are important thinkers, and understanding them can be very useful and it’s not ever going to happen at a four-hour seminar. When the President’s got an embassy surrounded in Haiti, or a keyhole photograph of a heavy water reactor, or any of the fifty life-and-death matters that walk across his desk every day, I don’t know if he’s thinking about Immanuel Kant or not.

I doubt it, but if he does, I am comforted at least in my certainty that he is doing his best to reach for all of it and not just the McNuggets. Is it possible we would be willing to require any less of the person sitting in that chair? The low road? I don’t think it is.”

I think of this in some form or fashion every single day. I think of it because we seem to be constantly bombarded with simplistic Gary V-type tripe. But I thought of this the other day as I was embroiled in a maddening email exchange debating entitlement programs and benefits.

It was maddening because this was a smart savvy business guy sending Instagram images to ‘capture’ the essence of the issue — but they do not.

This is actually the mainstay of faux motivational positive psychology as well as the absurd Influencer industry. But, frankly, we all do this on occasion – send some visual, cartoon, image, snippet quote to encapsulate what we feel, and believe, with regard to an issue.

It is, at its core, fortune cookie wisdom. It is parsing wisdom in mcnugget form.

And, while this is a rant, my point isn’t that we are stupid people or lazy thinkers. In fact I would suggest most people who really took the time to think about shit are pretty insightful and understand most issues. My point is that sometimes Life, and issues, demand we invest thinking on an issue. It demands more than fortune cookie wisdom and demands more than lazy/easy thinking.

That said. The topic which drove this rant.

It is so simple to say everyone who is receiving some benefit from a welfare system as lazy <despite the fact when asked over 90% unequivocally want a job and be working at a salary which they need not receive any assistance>.

It is so simple to say almost 50% of Americans receive some benefit, but forget almost 90% are actually WORKING as they receive benefits assistance.

It is so simple to say everyone on food stamps abuse the system <despite the fact research shows that something like less than 6% abuse the system>.

Simple? No. We are constantly using phrases & images that sound deep and meaningful while completely missing the bigger point or using a soundbite or image to showcase the issue without delving into the complexity of the issue.

When you take one-liners out of context, or make complex issues into little phrases it makes for a great sound bite but often seriously misleads people.

<sigh>

I have always been fascinated by how people think. What always makes me scratch my head is why seemingly smart and intelligent people think, say and believe crazy things. Mostly I chalk it up to lazy thinking <hopefully not actually ‘not thinking’>.

Look. I know we all do this at least some of the time. A guy named Daniel Kahneman <“Thinking Fast and Slow”> points out that human brains are hard-wired to process and function in ways that are easy and fast. Uh oh. That means our brains are actually, most of the time, not really thinking <although in our own minds we all think we are constantly thinking>.

For efficiency purposes our brains tend to process information in one of two ways.

– automatic response to input

– actual thinking

The difficult one is the latter — thinking can be difficult, tiring, vexing and time consuming. Therefore our brains typically default to the fast automatic response mode. We do this unconsciously.

Ok. Then <you may ask> what happens when we do actually think?

On key issues it seems like our default beginning point is ‘motivation’ … as in ‘what is in it for this person.’ Therefore, we are automatically thinking the worst and then forcing ourselves to actually consider the best scenario.

What a wacked way of thinking about things.

Its particularly wacked when you actually look at the research or deign to actually speak with people. We, people in general & the everyday schmucks, actually WANT to do the right thing more often than not.

And that is the evil of fortune cookie wisdom.

Going back to the issue I began the rant on. There is a huge swath of Americans who dismiss the almost 50% of Americans who access at least some component of benefits offered by the government as “takers” — the people who mooch off the government. This means the remaining ‘wealthy people’ are viewed as the “makers” in U.S. society.

This almost seems like I am reading from an Ayn Rand book.

Let’s be very clear. These so called “takers” are not kicking back and relaxing or sitting at home watching bad television eating steak all funded by generous government benefits. They are working. They are trying to figure out how to get out of the hellhole of ‘never enough money to get ahead.’

And to all the fortune cookie politicians out there I would like to point out that, according to the Washington Post, Congress was only in session for a full week nine times in 2014 <for the record I believe it is the least productive congress in over 50 years>. So every politician who is railing against entitlements and welfare probably should recognize they are earning over $100+k a year working part time <with benefits>.

So who’s lazy?

Ok. How about some reality <non fortune cookie style>.

Lots of research states the poverty/poverty line folk who do access some welfare option are working their asses off <less than 6% shown to abuse the system>.

CodeCarvings Piczard Image

Lots of research suggesting households with higher than median income are more likely to abuse some aspect of the welfare system. and an even higher % of what would be considered ‘wealthy’ <not uber rich> are more likely to take advantage of the system.

Uhm. This means that research shows that the people who truly don’t need the money are more likely to abuse the system in some way <simply to maintain their ‘way of life they believe they deserve’>. Therefore if you cut back welfare programs in the current environment the ones who pay the largest price for that are the ones who need it the most.

Next. The harsh reality of shifting someone off of benefits nobody seems to talk about. Say I am working <something like 90% of low income people who access some aspect of welfare are working> and I have a family of three and I earn 28k and access some welfare <which means I most likely have a net income of maybe $35-$39k>, to move off of welfare I need to jump that net income 35k or 40+k to make the move off of benefits and still be able to afford only what I already have.

Uh oh. And I am already working a full time job <or 2 part time jobs>.

How do we, as a society, help them jump the gap? Because you & I know that if you are only earning 28k it is most likely because you are not qualified to have a $50k job at that time. By the way. McNugget wisomd negalctes to point out its not that person does not want to stop benefits, they cannot. Welfare programs are set up as a safety net. And for 90+% of people with a low income that is exactly what it does.

Unfortunately it also serves as ‘supplemental income’ for something like 10+% of non low income people who don’t need the safety net.

Lastly. Just because someone is accessing some benefits doesn’t mean they don’t read what’s going on in the world or be in touch with greater societal discussions <some of the discussions I see on television or hear on the radio are so diminishing in tone I am almost embarrassed … don’t people, in general, deserve to be treated better? … we act like they are not there as we talk>.

People with a low income are also looking at the numbers and cost of living and how people with a low income have an incredibly difficult time getting OUT of low income situations. In addition. They hear people continuously say how lazy they are <boy … that’s some good positive psychology at work from the so-called intellectuals with some money>. And all the while they look around and see wealthy people working not as hard <yes, many of the wealthy work, but the work is relatively speaking> and that others, not working so hard to deserve earning so much, have so much.

All that to say they feel like the system is rigged against them even if they do work hard. They haven’t quit they feel like the system has quit on them.

How do we solve that? Because if we solve that research shows over & over again that if people DO feel like they have a chance they will work for it.

So maybe I should discuss the easiest way to give people their dignity while providing governmental support — that is to create a job governmentally so that they get their ‘welfare’ funds via actual work, therefore, what they receive is tangibly linked to working.

Oops. While that may appear to be socialism <bad, bad word> we should go back to the fact they are already working and earning some money so that job we have created for them can’t just be at the value of what they were receiving as their welfare safety net but it also has to cover the amount they were earning that they can no longer do so because we are ‘giving them work.’

This is complex stuff.

Fortune cookie wisdom drives me fucking crazy. If major country issues were as easy as fortune cookie wisdom don’t you think we would do it?

Big issues are complex.

All I can say about benefits <or entitlements as called negatively>? It is complex. The only simple fact is that 99% of people want to work … not to simply work … but because the output of what they do validates who they are as people and they find meaning in what they do.

But. Bottom line? They want to work. They just want to know that if they peddle as hard as they can that they, or their children, actually can get somewhere.

And as for fortune cookie wisdom?

Pleeeeeeeeeeease <said sarcastically>.

We need to step away from our ‘easy’ thoughts, including the negative ones, because far too frequently we simply accept them as the truth.

Thinking takes work.

Challenging what you think takes work.

Refusing fortune cookie wisdom takes work.

===

“Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking.

There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions.

Nothing pains some people more than having to think.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

===

Now. This ‘hard work’ actually can be achieved. There was a guy named Burns who suggested we needed to strengthen our ‘emotional reasoning’. He defined emotional reasoning as assuming “that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are, i.e., ‘I feel it, therefore it must be true.’ ” I call it ‘focus group of one’ <one being yourself> in that your own feelings & experiences guide your interpretation of reality.

I should just call it lazy thinking. We need to stop being lazy because we deserve conversations better than fortune cookie wisdom. We deserve leaders, and people, who can rise above fortune cookie wisdom.

…. me disappointed with lazy intellectuals ….

I get absolutely fucking steamed when anyone makes these simple blanket statements with regard to large complex issues. Any issue not just ‘welfare & safety nets.’

But I get particularly disappointed when people smart enough to know better do it.

We should never yield the privilege of thinking. The cost is high to do so. We should never be satisfied with the mcnugget version of what we need to hear nor should we accept fortune cookie wisdom as true solutions for issues that need to be discussed … and resolved.

—-

“When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.”

“The greatest illusion of this world is the illusion of separation. Things you think are separate and different are actually one and the same.We are all one people. But we live as if divided.”

—-

The Last Airbender

====================

So.

It seems like I have been talking with a lot of businesses about differentiation & distinctness. Inevitably the conversation turns to ‘brands, branding & being different.” Three painful B’s. And once that happens inevitably the conversations turns to well known brands (Apple, Amazon, Coke) and viewing all those B’s as a reflection of who & what they are.

There may be some value in that conversation but, here is the deal, unless you have worked only at “glamour brand” companies (think Nike, Coke, McDonalds, etc) you have spent an entire career making your unglamorous brand/company/service not look like a commodity (because pretty much all non-glamour brands all get thrown into some confused perception/awareness cluster).

Oh. By the way.

Even ‘glamour’ brands struggle with differentiation (or not dropping into a functional commodity status) in the b2b market (see Kodak, IBM, etc. as prime examples).

So. Unless you have worked on a glamour brand where people line up to show your logo somewhere on their body you have had to become an expert in the decommoditization business.

—————————————

decommoditization:

Meaningful differentiation is difficult. It is more than features & benefits and it is absolutely more than sheer ‘puffery’ <the claim that we are unique and everyone will beat a path to our door>.

This is truly the challenge of what a really smart guy named Hugh McLeod calls ‘decommoditization.’ Most businesses simply begin from the wrong place. They either seek ‘white space’ in the competitive environment or they believe they are different and set out to tell the world about it.

That is good old school ideology.

But it is bad because it is old thinking.

In today’s more cynical world the mind’s perception map assumes everyone is equal until proven otherwise.

Every day a business is decommoditizing itself or it is slipping down the slippery slope to commodity.

Unless your business is lean hogs, rough rice, natural gas or soybeans <all commodity futures you can invest in> you better have your head focused on decommoditizing.

Bruce McTague

—————————

I know I have on my resume (somewhere) something like “an ability to differentiate in commodity like categories.”

Well. Okay. That said. In today’s internet world and an endless depth of available information at everyone’s fingertips, where everyone is someone’s competition for expectations, almost everyone is in a commodity like category.

On a separate note. Other than a happy few this also summarizes almost the entire b2b category. Everyone fighting themselves out of the ‘lowest cost provider’ status into ‘great value’ (which by the way is ‘brand’) status.

It doesn’t sound glamorous, but I haven’t been in the branding business or the marketing business or whatever strategy business someone wants to call it. I have been in the decommoditization business. In fact. Anyone who says something like that in an interview? Hire them. And hire them now.

Anyway.

My view is in today’s world the moment you stop and rest on the thought you are a ‘brand’ and have added value in someone’s mind (b2b or consumer) you are screwed. Every minute you do nothing you slip backwards toward commodity.

Hugh MacLeod did the cartoon to the right and I laughed when I first saw it because, while I don’t know him personally, he used almost the exact same words I/we used in a new business presentation to a state tourism business in the late 90’s (and then used over and over again with retail and commodity-like businesses).

It’s not just advertising. It’s relevant to all business.

If you own a business or selling anything to anyone, life isn’t top down (brand to product). Life is down to up – product to brand (constantly seeking to insure your head is above the commodity water).

Does that sound defensive? God. I hope not. It’s just smart. It doesn’t mean you aren’t on the offensive and building value and thinking long term, it simply means you have a practical objective – I don’t want to be a damn commodity.

Anyway.

Meaningful differentiation is hard, REALLY hard. I believe businesses would find it easier if they focused less on brand and more on decommoditizing (which inherently is about value creation).

“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, not the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

=

Charles Darwin

—————————-

Well. Survival. A topic we all care about.

This quote should make everyone think about Life as well as with their business. I love this quote mostly because those with ‘brawn’ scoff at those with ‘brains’, and vice versa, when survival (and that doesn’t have to mean life & death but rather success or failure) is being played out.

Regardless of the side someone is on both brawn & brain believe they have the advantage regardless of the situation in terms of survival.

But. Chuck (as Darwin was called to his closest friends) suggests you don’t have to be the sharpest knife in the drawer nor do you have to be the strongest tool in the drawer to survive. You just have to be flexible. Responsive to what is happening. Have a willingness to adapt to the situation.

Flexibility is certainly an advantage if you have the desire to succeed at anything you do (ask any coach). We all face times when we have to deal with situations that do not “fit in” to our routine or our ‘comfort zone.’ I say “tough noogies” (not sure exactly what that means, but I bet you get the point).

Adapt or die.

Just ponder. One of the most frustrating things in life is when you have done your best and yet things still go wrong. Or maybe you didn’t get to where you wanted to get to (what you were ultimately aiming for).

You have to be flexible.

You have to adapt.

You have to have the ability to fit into a changed situation … or … to modify your behavior & actions accordingly to fit the changed situation.

And if you don’t? If instead you stubbornly hold on to some things that don’t work, and stubbornly repeat mistakes (because it matches best practices or “what worked in that past“) this inflexibility will cause failure (or simply not reaching what it is you were aiming for which is a derivative of some type of failure). By the way, in other words, continuous behavior along those lines means you will not survive.

Ultimately you have to decide to do things differently to experience different results.

Easy? Nope. It can be uncomfortable. It can be emotionally draining.

We know that when we are asked to change again and again, the physical and psychological reaction, which is actually excessive stimulation to the system, puts our ability to adapt under massive strain. All the change produces stress and carries with it a physical and emotional price tag. The more radical the change — the bigger the price tag.

Excessive stimulation has at least three levels: sensory, cognitive and decisional. To help us function <or survive>, each of us has developed strategies, or destimulation tactics, to lower the level of stimulation when we feel uncomfortably close to the limits of our adaptive range. We use these tactics every day, often unconsciously. Yet. By becoming conscious of them we can increase their effectiveness. By examining our own responses to overstimulation we can learn ways of consciously influencing change. We can begin by influencing small events, then expand our influence to larger patterns of experience. All these mental tactics are designed to detach from the shit … and rise above all that you are today so that you can be the best you can be tomorrow.

To do all of this you need to be aware. You need to not only be prepared to recognize when change needs to occur (typically there is a threshold on where you need to stop fighting the change or risk falling so far behind you cannot catch up or just be ‘eliminated’ at that time … oh … that survival thing) but you also need to be ready to change.

Look. Everyone has the capability to change. In fact I have a nifty chart which shows how most people accept & accommodate change.

Its pretty simple but shows that we need to work through the different levels of response to effect change. I would imagine there are several points to be made but here are the two from me:

– you learn as you move through each phase at each point actually changing how you think about future problems/challenges to further change

– you can get stuck anywhere in any phase at any time (the nifty chart actually helps show how easy it is to NOT change because you get stuck somewhere).

So. As change is introduced to you & your life you are forced through all four levels. I would imagine the last conclusion would be to attain the fourth level as quickly as possible.

Anyway. Survival, and change, pretty much always depends on the most basic first step – believe that you are able to make the changes. And take the first step.

Without that? You have the thought, but no action.

And the result of no action? Lack of survival again.

All that said. I tend to believe a lot of people will read the Darwin quote and seek to find meaning within ‘survival of the fittest’ bigger picture. I have some strange advice (coming from me).

Think small my friends.

Think day-to-day.

Think “me.”

Think that survival is about adapting to the environment around you.

Think adapting means “initiating a new order of <personal> things ….”

—

“It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.

For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only luke-warm defenders in all those who profit by the new order.

This luke-warmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had an actual experience of it”.

Machiavelli

=

Bottom line.

Always think about how can you adapt.

By the way, I am not suggesting (and I believe Chuck Darwin wasn’t either) 100% change to adapt (although some situations demand it). Successful change typically begins by pinpointing anchors of stability (one you either have or can develop) which help to make the transition change not only viable, but more likely successful for you.

Science is not a bunch of facts. Scientists are not people trying to be prescriptive or authoritative.

Science is simply the word we use to describe a method of organizing our curiosity. It’s easier, at a dinner party, to say ”science” than to say ”the incremental acquisition of understanding through observation, humbled by an acute awareness of our tendency towards bias”.

Douglas Adams said: “I’d take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.”

Science is not the opposite of art, nor the opposite of spirituality – whatever that is – and you don’t have to deny scientific knowledge in order to make beautiful things.

–

Tim Minchin

================

“I could make a better decision than that stupid one.”

—

said by anyone who thinks they are smarter than a leader

=============

Whew. Twitter reminds me day in and day out how effective the incompetent are at marketing ‘competence’. For the less than discerning eye the incompetent can look quite competent, if not almost achieve an expert perception status. It is becoming really hard, as in REALLY hard, to explain your skill competence in superior or even ‘better than’ ways these days. I clearly and unequivocally believe we are now officially in the decommoditization era. No matter your resume, no matter your experience, no matter your education or anything you have done you have to assume you are a commodity in the eyes of … well … everyone.

Oddly this is even more a truth when you step out of your own circle of truly competitively skilled compatriots <where everyone is equal – a version of commodity – until proven otherwise>.

Ok. I admit. I made up that word ‘expertology.’ Today I take it a step farther under the title of “the commoditization of competency.”What I mean by that is competency and having qualifications is becoming meaningless to everyone except hiring agents and recruiters.

In fact. Let’s just admit it <insert a deep sigh here>, competency, skill & qualifications have attained a commodity status. Sure. We put high falutin’ titles on resumes and highlight success stories and results we have achieved, but inevitably once in a job everyone on the outside looking in views you as a peer – regardless of your skill and title.

This is disheartening … yeah … disheartening …I mean, c’mon, how could it not? … how could the undervaluing, if not complete disregard, of experience and proven skills not be disheartening?

Even worse … it is crazy. As in crazy dangerous.

Look. I don’t care what experience you have, what qualifications you have and what title you have … you are human. That means you will have some successes and some failures. In today’s critical world this means even some of the successes could be viewed as ‘not as good as it should have been’ and the failures could be viewed as “worse than they should have been.” Therefore, because people not actually asociated with whatever is being discussed they view each action, success or failure, as mutually exclusive and without some context, well, people inevitably lose confidence and trust in the leaders decisions, and competency, as decisions & actions get parsed.

This gets challenging because competency, in and of itself, is about the lowest bar one can meet. It most likely suggests someone can carry out the requirements of a specific task. Sure. It may be better than able or capable, which implies that it is possible someone may actually be able to carry out the task, but it is also not ‘qualified’ … which stresses the possession of desired skills nor does it ratchet up to anything higher unless it gets attached to fit, efficient or even good. I say all that because if you commoditize competency, and it is already perceived as ‘the lowest good bar for the responsibility’ then you have dumbed down the concept of what is actually needed to a place in which it appears that anyone could almost do it.

That is crazy.

While I am not suggesting that we view those with the best qualifications and competencies as ‘the few who are chosen and everyone else is a failure and deserves to be forgotten’, I will suggest that leaders mostly get chosen because fewer people can actually do what they do – and do it well on top of that.

I get that people are sick of experts. But that is misguided thinking because experts are experts for a reason. But, maybe worse, people are sick of thinking that people can actually do something they cannot do or make decisions they cannot make. The absurd overarching view becomes “a decision is a decision and anyone with common sense can make it.”

That is absurd. And, yet, that perception creates a reality in which those who truly have superior competence and excellent qualifications are treated to the unending joy of explaining why that doesn’t translate into a commodity. This all gets compounded by the fact that … well … this gets even more absurd … because the hiring process is rigorous and managed expertly … it becomes viewed as biased and rigged <therefore the true qualifications get ignored because outside people just think they did not matter in the hiring process>.

All this to say that we have a competency crisis at hand.

If qualifications do not matter … if experience does not matter … if everything you have done is second guessed to a point of … well … nothing meaningful, than anyone and everyone is competent enough to maybe not do any job but certainly able to make the same decisions anyone else can make.

Reread that last bolded grouping of words. If that doesn’t send a shiver down your spine I do not know what will.

Look. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion. And even the guy at the corner of the bar can find the right decision on occasion.

All I know is that I have been thinking about this for quite some time and have been quite concerned about how society is commoditizing competency. But it all really hit home when I realized an obviously unqualified presidenial candidate was going to be placed in a position where, more than character, competency matters.

Trump embodies this crisis of competency.

As I mentioned to a friend of mine … yes, the Trump choice is partially a fuck you to politicians. But what YOU are missing is that most people will only say fuck you to this extent if they actually feel like there is a competency safety net. And that is where we as a society are fucking ourselves. We have reached this absurd point where we see ‘competency’ as a commodity. I wrote about it in a post I called ‘corner of the bar wisdom’ but if the majority of the rural population is sitting in some bar or barbershop truly believing that they could do the job as well as someone who has the necessary skills & competency … well … then you become willing to overlook real qualifications for a job and choose someone based on things other than qualifications.

This is an unsettling dangerous issue.

In this case it becomes doubly dangerous for society because in an ever increasing multicultural and gender equal environment … older white men are driving this attitude. This just feeds back into an archaic way of conducting business and guiding society. Therefore, on the dangerous side of his equation, a competent ‘win any way you can’ person is equal to a competent ‘how you win matters’ person.

Look. This isn’t necessarily about Trump he simply embodies the issue at hand. This is more about how we are dangerously commoditizing competency and skills which ignores the truth that, like it or not, qualified people are better skilled and better informed. To be clear … that does not necessarily follow that their judgement will always be correct. But that doesn’t translate into them not being skilled or informed or competent.

We far too often shortchange the influence and ability to shape events beyond the more obvious transactional moment. And, yes, that is where competency gets screwed. Competency can be nitpicked to death through linear evaluation, and value assessment, rather than a more complex evaluation of larger affect.

In addition, if my competency were solely judged by some event and decision I made 6 years ago, it ignores the fact that there is no doubt I am more confident in the assessments I make today. I can see beyond the horizon faster than I used to. I think it was Obama who said “the map isn’t always the territory, and you have to kind of walk through it to get a feel for it.” You get a better feel for unintended consequences and consequences in general. And that is where true competency resides … not in the actual moment but also in the aftermath and consequences.

Here is what I know about less-than-competent less-than-qualified decision makers — they have a nasty habit of selecting a path to a target and then to use whatever information they have to persuade others to not obstruct the path they have already decided to walk. This means:

<1> they really aren’t that interested in real ‘truth’ but rather fall back on ‘common sense’ <without the experience and skills and qualifications to insure the common sense is really something that makes sense> and,

<2> they use what I consider ‘pillar logic’, i.e., they stack up what they need under the decision to raise it up … versus the more solid ‘pyramid logic’ which actually creates a foundation from which the decision points up to.

But you know what? While the competency crisis is aggravating I believe the greatest danger of commoditizing competence and qualifications is the fact that it ignores the downside — recklessness, ignorance and incompetence.

Yes. Even a commodity has a downside. Let’s call it the ugly underbelly. Maybe even call it the ‘dangerous foundation of pillar thinking.’ Yeah. a three legged stool is solid … uhm .. until one leg is broken.

Less than competent leaders like three legged stools.

Competent leaders like concrete foundations.

Uhm. That summarizes the risk & recklessness & ignorance argument almost better than anything else I have said.

Anyway. I get concerned we are commoditizing competency. It has some unseemly repercussions and even some dangerous repercussions.

I don’t mind being in the decommoditization business with regard to my own competency but , in general, it seems like it puts an undue onus on experts and the people who really do know their shit to be better at articulating competency than the asshats who have the ‘gift of gab’ and don’t know their shit.